DAPTF SEED GRANT – FINAL REPORT – March 2006
Project Title: Development of a Database on Reintroductions, Translocations, and Associated
Captive Breeding of Amphibians.
Grantee: Amy J. Lind (formerly U.C. Davis Graduate Student) currently Wildlife Biologist,
USDA Forest Service, Sierra Nevada Research Center, 2121 Second St., Suite A-101, Davis, CA
95616.
Background
Historically, species translocations and reintroductions1 have been used as efforts of last
resort in the recovery of endangered species. However, because of the accelerating rate of
population decline of many species, reintroductions have become an increasingly important
component of conservation strategies. Reintroductions have failed more often than they have
succeeded, especially for threatened and endangered vertebrates (e.g. Griffith et al. 1989), calling
into question the approaches, assumptions, and methods used. Recent reviews of reintroduction
programs have suggested a better grounding in ecological theory is needed (May 1991, Sarrazin
and Barbault 1996). Specifically, reviewers have recommended that habitat suitability,
demographic factors, and genetic structure and variation of the focal species be understood prior
to the initiation of a reintroduction (Griffith, et al. 1989, Sarrazin and Barbault 1996). These
same reviews have stressed the need for long-term monitoring of reintroduced populations so
that successes and failures can be documented allowing one to learn from both outcomes.
Amphibian translocations and reintroductions are currently occurring throughout North
America, Europe, and Australia with limited coordination among practitioners and no
internationally endorsed taxa-specific guidelines. While some reintroductions have been
successful (Denton et. al. 1997), others have failed or have unknown outcomes (Dodd 2005).
These failures as well as other ecological and genetic concerns have led to cautionary articles
regarding amphibian reintroductions (Dodd and Siegel 1991, Reinert 1991, Seigel and Dodd
2002, Dodd 2005). Amphibians present distinctive challenges as reintroduction subjects due to
several unique ecological, genetic, and demographic characteristics and the interplay among
them. For example, they often exhibit strong site fidelity and have low dispersal rates which can
lead to local adaptations that strongly influence genetic structure (Storfer 1999). In addition,
their biphasic life cycles may result in different habitat requirements for eggs, larvae or juveniles,
and adults.
An important step in understanding past successes and failures of amphibian
reintroductions is a critical evaluation of past and current programs using standardized metrics
for species characteristics and measures of success. A database with detailed information on
attempted amphibian reintroductions would allow that sort of analysis. Such a database also
could be used by both restoration practitioners searching for current information and contacts,
and by scientists interested in evaluating programs with regard to species, geographic regions,
and other factors.
1
Re-introduction - an attempt to establish a species in an area which was once part of its historical range, but from
which it has been extirpated or become extinct.
Translocation - deliberate and mediated movement of wild individuals or populations from one part of their range to
another. (IUCN 1995).
1
In the winter of 2003, in collaboration with Tim Halliday of DAPTF, I used email and
phone surveys of herpetological colleagues to collect preliminary information on recent (1980present) reintroduction projects for amphibians throughout the world. As of March 2003, we had
received what I believe to be a fairly complete list of programs in North and Central America.
This included 46 reintroduction or translocation programs and associated captive breeding efforts
involving 25 species. Information on these programs was compiled in tabular form and included
the following categories: focal species, species’ legal status, geographic location, individual or
group in charge, years in operation, whether it was considered a translocation or reintroduction,
whether captive breeding was part of the program, whether it included monitoring, reports or
publications on the project, and detailed contact information for the project coordinator. This
information is summarized in Table 1 below and details for each program are available at the
DAPTF web site - http://www.open.ac.uk/daptf/about/abou7.htm.
This collated information was used as a starting point for and documentation of existing
amphibian reintroductions for an amphibian reintroduction database. Though the majority of
amphibian reintroductions to date have occurred in North America, Europe, and Australia, the
amphibian database described here will ultimately be international in scope to facilitate
communication of best practices to and from all regions. It is also designed to distinguish
between in situ and ex situ captive breeding programs associated with either translocations or
reintroductions.
Methods
I began the process of developing a database for amphibians using an Avian
Reintroduction Database (ARD) as a model (Earnhardt 2003). The ARD (Microsoft Access
format) provides a searchable, updateable medium for storing information on reintroductions of
birds. It contains 80 variables relating to demography, genetic, behavioral, and ecological
aspects of focal species and their reintroduction sites. Currently it contains data on 54 species
and 350 field releases from around the world (Earnhardt 2003). Further updates will include
information on translocations and a possible expansion of the database to mammals (J.
Earnhardt, pers. comm.)
Because the ARD database exists as a model, my project involved two steps:
(1) evaluate the structure and variables in the ARD in terms of their appropriateness for
amphibians, and (2) begin to fill in the revised database with information on amphibian
reintroductions. The general structure of the ARD is depicted in Figure 1 and a detailed list of
data fields for the avian database is available upon request. For step 1, I first made minor
modifications to a template of the existing ARD data fields so that field names, terminology, and
associated definitions were more appropriate for amphibians. I then solicited courtesy reviews of
the proposed template from 11 herpetological colleagues by telephone and email. Step 2
involved collecting more detailed information for a subset of the 46 North and Central American
programs described above; including acquisition of unpublished reports and relevant publications
and email exchanges with practitioners. For this step, I focused on projects in the western United
States and Canada because all of these were active programs involving species at risk and
substantial literature was available for them.
Results
Of the 11 herpetological colleagues I queried, 6 provided comments on the proposed
database structure. Comments ranged from very detailed to very general, but all were focused on
2
individual data fields rather than on the overall structure of the database. All comments were
incorporated into the database template and the Access database structure is currently being
revised. The overall structure of the database remains the same as the ARD and the revised data
fields are described in Table 2. Published and unpublished reports were gathered through
contacts listed in the table of amphibian reintroduction projects described above (available on the
web at: http://www.open.ac.uk/daptf/about/abou7.htm). These sources along with information
gleaned from general natural history and field guides will provide the initial data for the revised
amphibian reintroduction database. Not all sources listed are currently in hand; e.g., acquisition
of some unpublished reports and Master’s theses will require additional inquiries and costs (e.g.,
photocopying) (Table 3). In addition to the above accomplishments, conceptual advances were
made through reviewing the amphibian reintroduction literature and via discussions with
herpetological colleagues. Some of these concepts were incorporated into Lind (2005) and others
are currently being developed in a manuscript.
Future Work
I continue to seek additional funding to complete work on the amphibian database
project. A collaborator (JoAnn Earnhardt, Lincoln Park Zoo, Chicago, IL) and I applied
unsuccessfully for a Lindberg Foundation Grant in 2004. I am currently writing a grant proposal
to the Chicago Zoological Society Board of Trade, Endangered Species Fund, and will work with
Pritpal Soorae (IUCN/SSC Re-introduction Specialist Group) to garner a letter of support for that
proposal. I am also developing a manuscript covering both conceptual and practical aspects of
amphibian reintroductions with a reintroduction practitioner from Oregon (Christopher Pearl,
USGS Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center).
3
Literature Cited
Cook, R. P. 2002. Herpetofaunal community restoration in a post-urban landscape (New York and New Jersey).
Ecological restoration 20(4):290-291.
Denton, J.S., S.P. Hitchings, T.J.C. Beebee and A. Gent. 1997. A recovery program for the natterjack toad (Bufo
calamita) in Britain. Conservation Biology 11 (6):1329-1338.
Dodd, C.K. 2005. Population manipulation. M.J. Lannoo, ed. Amphibian Declines: The Conservation Status of
U.S.Species. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Dodd, C.K., Jr., and R.A. Siegel. 1991. Relocation, repatriation, and translocations of amphibians and reptiles: are
they conservation strategies that work? Herpetologica 47:336-350.
Earnhardt, J.M, D. Rentsch, E. VanderWerf, L. Faust, A. Wolf, and S.D. Thompson. 2003. The science of
reintroduction: a survey of avian release programs. Poster presentation at Society for Conservation Biology Annual
Meeting, Duluth, MN., July. (available upon request from joanne@lpozoo.org).
Griffith, B., J.M. Scott, J.W. Carpenter, and C. Reed. 1989. Translocation as a species conservation tool. Science
245:477-480.
IUCN 1995. IUCN/SSC Guidelines For Re-Introductions. 41st Meeting of the IUCN Council, Gland, Switzerland,
May. http://www.iucn.org/themes/ssc/pubs/policy/reinte.htm.
Lind, A.J. 2005. Reintroduction of a declining amphibian: determining an ecologically feasible approach for the
foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii) through analysis of decline factors, genetic structure, and habitat
associations. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Davis. (March) 169 pp.
May, R.M. 1991. The role of ecological theory in planning re-introduction of endangered species. Pp. 145-163 in
Gipps, J.H.W. ed. Beyond Captive Breeding: Re-introducing Endangered Mammals to the Wild. Symp. Zool. Soc.
Lond. 62.
Reinert, H.K. 1991. Translocation as a conservation strategy for amphibians and reptiles: some comments,
concerns, and observations. Herpetologica 47:357-363.
Sarrazin, F. and R. Barbault. 1996. Reintroductions: challenges and lessons for basic ecology.
Trends in Ecology and Evolution 11:474-478.
Seigel, R.A. and C. K. Dodd, Jr. 2002. Translocations of amphibians: proven management method or experimental
technique. Conservation Biology 552-554.
Storfer, A. 1999. Gene flow and endangered species translocations: a topic revisited. Biological Conservation
87:173-180.
4
Table 1. Summary1 of recent (1980-present) and planned reintroduction/ translocation programs
for amphibians in North and Central America (compiled via email and telephone inquiries,
February – March 2003).
% of
% of
Programs Programs
with
With
Species
Captive
Number of State or
Breeding
Active
Federally or
Region
Programs Listed
Rearing
Species
Bufo fowlerli, B. houstonensis, Hyla
Eastern
24
8.3
5.9
versicolor, Pseudacris crucifer,
2
U.S.
Rana clamitans, R. sylvatica,
Scaphiopus holbrooki, Ambystoma
annulatum, A. maculatum,
Notophthalmus, viridescens,
Plethodon cinereus
Bufo baxteri, B. boreas, Rana boylii,
Western
17
100.0
23.5
R. chiricahuensis,
U.S.
R. draytonii, R. lutriventris, R.
muscosa, R. onca,
R. pipiens, R. pretiosa,
R. subaquavocalis,
R. tarahumara
Eastern
0
Canada
Western
2
100.0
100.0
R. pipiens
Canada
Mexico
0
Caribbean
2
100.0
100.0
Bufo lemur, Leptodactylus fallax
Central
1
100.0
100.0
Atelopus zeteki
America
1
Details on each program are available at the Declining Amphibians Populations Task Force web site –
http://www.open.ac.uk/daptf/about/abou7.htm.
2
Eastern U.S. is east of the Rocky Mountains. The high number of programs in this region are largely a result of a
multi-year effort to translocate several relatively common species into unoccupied areas of the Gateway National
Recreation Area in New York, U.S.A. (Cook 2002).
5
Table 2. Data fields and descriptions from Microsoft Access database (see Figure 1) of
amphibian reintroductions. Database table names are highlighted. Data fields are grouped here
for efficiency but each is a unique field within the database.
DATA FIELD
Species Information
Species ID, Order, Genus, Species, Subspecies,
Common name
ESA status, CITES status, IUCN Red List category,
Recovery Plan, PVA,
Diet, Migratory, Aquatic/terrestrial, Ecotype Breeding
Habitat Type, Adult Habitat Type,
Lifespan Min, Lifespan Max, Clutch size, Clutches/yr,
Age at first mating (female), Age at first mating (male),
Breeding season,
Surrogate species, Surrogate for which species
DESCRIPTION
Taxonomic status
Risk status for each and information on analyses that
have been done
Basic ecological data
Life history information
Was this species used as a surrogate for another, if so,
what was the other species?
Pre-Release, Release Site, Post-Release
Site ID, Species ID
Site ID assigned automatically, Species ID from the
Species Information table
Location of release
Information on the causes of decline, indication of to
what degree this problem has been addressed, and reason
for the reintroduction.
Release site, State/region, Country, Latitude/longitude
Reason for decline, Habitat loss, Over-exploitation,
Invasives, Disease, Climatic effects,
Contaminants/toxin, Synergies (combination of above),
Problem addressed, Reason for reintroduction
Source facility, Type of facility/source, Source animals
geographic origin, AZA, Captive pop (pre), Captive pop
status, Head-starting, Bred for reintro
Size of release area, Total habitat area, Habitat type,
Habitat protected, Within known range
Habitat alterations, Breeding/Oviposition, Feeding,
Predator, Competitor, Fencing, Habitat
enhancement/restoration, Invasive species removed,
Predators, Competitors
Wild pop present, Wild pop size, Program status and
date, Continually Supplemented, Population status and
date, Current Pop size and date
Release Event Log
Event ID, Species ID, Site ID, Day, Month, Year,
Reintroduction event date
Captive/wild hatching, Captive/wild reared, Headstarted
Medical screening, Vaccinations / preventative
treatment, Genetic screening
Selection criteria, Medical, Genetic, Behavior, C/W
reared
Conditioning, Acclimatization, Acclim duration, Climate
Information about the source population and source
facility.
Information about the release site.
Status of release site relative to restoration or
protection/control of predators/competitors.
Status of released and wild population.
Release date information.
Captive or wild rearing.
Information on screening of released amphibians.
Criteria used to determine which individuals were
released.
Conditioning and acclimatization of released individuals
and conditions of release site.
Information on release setting, feeding, guidelines and
procedures followed.
Into wild population, Release group type, Supplemental
feedings, Feeding duration, IUCN guidelines, Surrogate
procedure, Similar procedure
#Animals released, #Male, #Female, #Unknown, # by
Lifestage, Age Min, Age Max
Marked with, Monitored by, Monitoring duration
Number of individuals released by gender and age/life
stage.
Monitoring and marking information.
6
DATA FIELD
Release Event Log, cont.
Survived 1 week, Survived 1 month, Survived 1 year,
Breeding attempted, Breeding successful, Main cause of
death
Sources
Source ID, Species ID, Authors, Year, Title, Publisher,
Volume, Pages, Location, Type
Contacts
Species ID, Site ID, Contact name, Contact institution,
Contact address, Contact email, Contact phone
Agencies
Site ID, Agency ID, Agency Name
DESCRIPTION
Survival and breeding status or released individuals.
Literature and other source information.
Contact information.
Agency information.
7
Table 3. Reports and publications on species reintroduction/translocation projects in the western United States and Canada (Rocky
Mountains and west). Highlighted items are currently in hand. Information gleaned from these references in combination with general
natural history and field guides (included in “Reports and Publications” at the bottom of the table) will provide the initial data for the
amphibian reintroduction database. (Changes post-submission to T. Halliday [i.e. after 3/22/06] are in green text.)
Species
Bufo baxteri
Wyoming toad
Location
Mortenson Lake National Wildlife
Refuge and Hutton Lake National
Wildlife Refuge, Wyoming,
Bufo boreas
Boreal toad
Rana boylii
Foothill yellow-legged frog
Rana chiricahuensis
Chiricahua leopard frog
Rocky Mountain National Park, Larimer
County, Colorado
Pinnacles National Monument,
California
Pleasant Valley Ranger District, Tonto
National Forest, Gila County, Arizona
Rana draytonii
California red-legged frog
Guadalupe Restoration Project,
Guadalupe-Nipomo Dunes Complex,
San Luis Obispo Co., California
San Francisco Bay Area, California
Rana draytonii
California red-legged frog
Rana draytonii
California red-legged frog
Rana lutieventris
Columbia spotted frog
Rana muscosa
Mountain yellow-legged frog
Rana muscosa
Mountain yellow-legged frog
Rana muscosa
Mountain yellow-legged frog
Rana onca
Relict leopard frog
Rana onca
Relict leopard frog
Pinnacles National Monument,
California
Heber Valley, Wasatch County, Utah
Sequoia – Kings Canyon National Park,
California
John Muir Wilderness, Sierra National
Forest, Fresno County, California
Gable lakes, Inyo National Forest, Inyo
County, California
Boulder City, Nevada (artificial
wetlands)
Lake Mead National Recreation Area,
Arizona and Nevada
Reports & Publications (detailed citations at bottom of table)
Baxter 1946, Baxter, 1952, Baxter 1985, Baxter and Meyer 1982, Baxter et al.
1982, Baxter and Stone 1985, Blair 1957, Corn 1992, Freda et al,. 1988, Garber
and Patten 1990, Jennings and Anderson 1997, Lewis 1984, Lewis et al. 1985,
Odum and Spencer 1996, Packard 1971, Parker 2000, Parker et al. 2000, Porter
1968, Smith et al. 1998, Spencer 1999, Stone 1991, Taylor et al. 1999a, b, c, d,
e, Withers 1992
Muths et al. 2001, Scherff-Norris et al. 2002
Johnson 2004, Johnson and Saulino 2006
Sredl and Healy 1999
Rathbun and Schneider 2001
None known.
Fesnock and Johnson 2002
Ammon and Wilson 2000, Ammon and Wilson 2001
Fellers, pers. com., Matthews 2003, USDI National Park Service 2001
Knapp 2001, Matthews 2003
None at present.
Bradford et al. 2004, Malfatti circa 1999, Relict Leopard Frog Conservation
Team 2003
Bradford et al. 2004, Malfatti circa 1999, Relict Leopard Frog Conservation
Team 2003
8
Species
Rana pipiens
Northern leopard frog
Rana pipiens
Northern leopard frog
(southern mountain population)
Rana pipiens
Northern leopard frog
Rana pretiosa
Oregon spotted frog
Rana subaquavocalis
Ramsey Canyon leopard frog
Rana tarahumarae
Tarahumara frog
Location
Release sites are located in west central
Alberta (Caroline and Rocky Mountain
House area) and central Alberta (Red
Deer area). Rearing facility is located
near Caroline, Alberta
Creston Valley,
British Columbia
Reports & Publications (detailed citations at bottom of table)
Fisher 1999, Kendell 2001, Kendell 2002, Kendell 2003a, Kendell 2003b,
Kendell 2004, Romanchuk 2003, Wendlandt and Takats 1999.
Flathead Indian Reservation, Montana
None known.
Wickiup Reservoir, Oregon
In prep.
Huachuca Mtns, Cochise County,
Arizona
Proposed for Big Casa Blanca (Santa
Rita Mtns) & Sycamore Canyons
(Atascosa Mtns) ,
Nogales Ranger District, Coronado
National Forest, Santa Cruz County,
southern Arizona
Demlong 1997, Ramsey Canyon Leopard Frog Conservation Team 2000, Sredl,
et al. 2002
Field et al. 2002, Hale and May, 1983, Hale and Jarchow 1988, Rorabaugh and
Humphrey 2002, Sredl et al. 2004
Adama et al. 2002, Adama et al. 2003, Wind 2002
Reports and Publications
Adama, D.B., K. Lansley, et. al. 2002. A small scale rearing effort for the reintroduction of Rana pipiens in the Creston Wildlife Management Area. Nelson,
B.C. Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program.
Adama, D. , K. Lansley, et. al. 2003. Captive rearing and reintroduction of northern leopard frogs in the Creston Wildlife Management Area 2002. Nelson, B.C.,
Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program.
Ammon, E. and K. Wilson. 2000. 2000 Updatae on Wasatch Front Columbia spotted frog studies in Heber Valley: Monitoring habitat use, and movement
studies. Report prepared for the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission. Salt Lake City, Utah.
Ammon, E.M. and K.W. Wilson. 2001. The roles of habitat creation, natural colonization, and relocation in recovering the Wasatch Front population of the
Columbia spotted frog (Rana luteiventris). Final report to USGS Species at Risk Program. Award No. 00HQGR0047.
Baxter, G.T. 1946. A study of the amphibians and reptiles of Wyoming. M.S. thesis, University of Wyoming, Laramie.
9
Baxter, G. T., 1952. The Relation of Temperature to the Altitudinal Distribution of Frogs and Toads in Southeastern Wyoming Ph.D. University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor.
Baxter, G.T, and M.D. Stone, 1985. Amphibians and Reptiles of Wyoming, 2nd ed. (Cheyenne: Wyoming Game and Fish Department), pp.34-36.
Baxter, G.T. and J.S. Meyer, 1982. Progress report: An investigation of the status of the Wyoming toad in Albany County, Wyoming, and possible causes of the
decline in numbers of Wyoming populations of anuran amphibians (Laramie: Department of Zoology, University of Wyoming), unpublished.
Baxter, G.T., M.R. Stromberg and C.K. Dodd, 1982. The status of the Wyoming toad (Bufo hemiophrys baxteri). Environmental Conservation 9: 338-348.
Blair, W.F. 1957. Mating call and relationships of Bufo hemiophrys Cope. The Texas Journal of Science 9: 99-108.
Bradford, D.F., J.R. Jaeger, and R.D. Jennings. 2004. Population status and distribution of a decimated amphibian, the relict leopard frog (Rana onca). The
Southwestern Naturalist 49(2):218-228.
Corn, P.S. 1992. Population ecology of the endangered Wyoming toad (Bufo hemiophrys baxteri). Unpublished.
Demlong, M.J. 1997. Head-starting Rana subaquavocalis in captivity. Reptiles January:25-33.
Fellers, G.M., personal communication. USGS, Western Ecological Research Center, Point Reyes, California.
Fesnock, A.L. and P.G. Johnson. 2002. Reestablishing California red-legged frogs to their historical range within Pinnacles National Monument. Oral
presentation at the Annual Meeting of he Western Section of the Wildlife Society, Visalia, California (Abstract only).
Field, K.J., M.J. Sredl, R.C. Averill-Murray, and T.B. Johnson. Draft 2002. A proposal to re-establish Tarahumara frogs (Rana tarahumarae) into southcentral
Arizona. Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program Draft Technical Report 201. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona.
Fisher, C. 1999. Feasibility of northern leopard frog translocation in Alberta: a review of physiological, ecological, methodological requirements for successful
repatriations and results from field investigations. Alberta Environment, Fisheries and Wildlife Management Division, Edmonton, AB. 30 pp.
Freda, J., B. Gern, D. McCleary and G. Baxter, 1988. The 1988 recovery efforts for the endangered Wyoming toad, Bufo hemiophrys baxteri (Laramie,
Wyoming: Department of Zoology, University of Wyoming), unpublished.
Garber, C.S. and E.C Patten, 1990. Mortenson Lake/Wyoming toad refuge/interim development/management plan (Laramie, Wyoming: The Wyoming Natural
Diversity Database, The Nature Conservancy), unpublished.
Hale, S.F. and C.J. May. 1983. Status report for Rana tarahumarae Boulenger. Arizona Natural Heritage Program, Tucson. Report to Office of Endangered
Species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, NM. 99 pp.
10
Hale, S.F. and J.L. Jarchow. 1988. The status of the Tarahumara frog (Rana tarahumarae) in the United States and Mexico: Part 2. C.R. Schwalbe and T.B.
Johnson, eds. Report to Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, and Office of Endangered Species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, NM. 101
pp.
Jennings, M. and A. Anderson 1997. The Wyoming toad. Endangered Species Bulletin 22(4):16-17.
Johnson, P.G. 2004. Re-establish foothill yellow-legged frog in Chalone Creek watershed, Pinnacles National Monument. USDI National Park Service,
Pinnacles National Monument, Paicines, California. PMIS #87652. 13pp.
Johnson, P.G. and R. Saulino. 2006. Re-introducin the foothill yellow-legged frog to Pinnacles National Monument. Poster presented at Annual Meeting of the
California-Nevada Working Group of the Declining Populations Task Force, Arcata, California.
Jones, L.C., W.P. Leonard, and D.H. Olson, eds. 2005. Amphibians of the Pacific Northwest. Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle, Washington.
Kendell, K. 2001. Northern leopard frog reintroduction: Raven River: Year 2 (2000). Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Alberta Species at Risk Report No. 13. 43 pp.
Kendell, K. 2002. Northern leopard frog reintroduction: Year 3 (2001). Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife Service, Alberta Species
at Risk Report No. 42. 45 pp.
Kendell, K. 2003a. Northern leopard frog reintroduction: Year 4 (2002). Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife Service, Alberta
Species at Risk Report No. 78, Edmonton, Alberta. 15pp.
Kendell, K. 2003b. The northern leopard frog reintroduction project. Pp 2-3 in: NMT Network News, Northwest Marine Technology, Inc., Shaw Island,
Washington.
Kendell, K. 2004. Northern leopard frog recovery program: Year 5 (2003). Unpublished report, Alberta Conservation Association, Edmonton, Alberta. 14pp.
Knapp, R. A. 2001. Reestablishing mountain yellow-legged frog populations in Humphreys Basin using translocations: a progress report. Unpublished file report
submitted to the California Dept. of Fish and Game.
Lannoo, M.J., ed. Amphibian Declines: The Conservation Status of U.S.Species. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Lewis, D.L. 1984. An investigation into the decline of the Wyoming toad (Bufo hemiophrys baxteri). Master’s thesis. University of Wyoming, Laramie.
Lewis, D.L, G.T. Baxter, K.M. Johnson, and M.D. Stone, 1985. Possible extinction of the Wyoming toad, Bufo hemiophrys baxteri. Journal of Herpetology
19(1): 166-168.
Malfatti, M. circa 1999. The relict leopard frog, Rana onca. The Vivarium 9(5):36-59.
11
Matthews, K.R. 2003. Response of mountain yellow-legged frogs, Rana muscosa, to short distance translocation. Journal of Herpetology 37(3):621-626.
Muths, E., T.L. Johnson and P.S. Corn. 2001. Experimental repatriation of boreal toads (Bufo boreas) eggs, metamorphs, and adults in Rocky Mountain National
Park. Southwestern Naturalist 46(1): 106-113
Odum, A. and B. Spencer. 1996. Conservation spotlight: Wyoming toad. Endangered Species UPDATE. 13 (6):9. Bufo hemiophrys baxteri
Packard, Gary C.. 1971. Inconsistency in application of the biological species concept to disjunct populations of anurans in southeastern Wyoming and
northcentral Colorado. Journal of Herpetology 5 (3-4): 191-193.
Parker, J. 2000. Habitat Use and Movements of the Wyoming toad, Bufo baxteri: A study of wild juvenile, adult, and released captive raised toads. Master’s
thesis. University of Wyoming, Laramie.
Parker, J., S.H. Anderson and F.J. Lindzey. 2000. Bufo baxteri (Wyoming toad). Predation. Herpetological Review. 31 (3):167-168.
Porter, K.R., 1968. Evolutionary status of a relict population of Bufo hemiophrys Cope. Evolution 22: 583-594.
Ramsey Canyon Leopard Frog Conservation Team. 2000. Ramsey Canyon Leopard Frog Conservation Team Activities 1996-2000. 34pp.
Rathbun, G.B. and J. Schneider. 2001. Translocation of California red-legged frogs (Rana aurora draytonii). Wildlife Society Bulletin 29(4):1300-1303.
Relict Canyon Leopard Frog Conservation Team. 2003. Conservation Agreement and Rangewide Assessment and Strategy for Relict Leopard Frog (Rana onca)
draft 6.
Romanchuk, K.A. 2003. Magrath northern leopard frog reintroduction project - year 1 progress report. Alberta Sustainable Development, Fish and Wildlife
Division, Alberta Species at Risk Report no. 79, Edmonton, Alberta.
Rorabaugh, J., and J. Humphrey. 2002. The Tarahumara frog: return of a native. Endangered Species Bulletin 27(2):24-26.
Scherff-Norris, K.L. L. J. Livo, A. Pessier, C. Fetkavich, M. Jones, M. Kombert, A. Goebel, and B. Spencer. 2002. Boreal toad husbandry manual. Colorado
Division of Wildlife, Native Aquatic Species Restoration Facility, Alamosa, Colorado. 78pp.
Smith, H.M., D. Chizar, J.T. Collins, and F. vanBreukenlen. 1997. The taxonomic status of the Wyoming toad, Bufo baxteri Porter. Contemporary Herpetology
(online journal) 1:1.
Spencer, B. 1999. The Wyoming toad SSP. Endangered Species Bulletin 24(3):18-19.
Sredl, M.J., and B.L. Healy. 1999. Conservation and management zones: evaluating an approach to conserving Arizona populations of the Chiricahua leopard
frog (Rana chiricahuensis). Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program Technical Report 149. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona.
12
Sredl M.J., K.J. Field, and A.M. Peterson. 2002. Mitigating threats and managing the Ramsey Canyon leopard frog in Arizona. Nongame and Endangered
Wildlife Program Technical Report 207. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona. 34pp.
Sredl, M.J., K.J. Field, R.C. Averill-Murray, T.B. Johnson. 2004. A proposal to re-establish Tarahumar frogs (Rana tarahhumarae) into Big Casa Blanca
Canyon, Arizon. Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program Technical Report 201, Phoenix, Arizona. 67pp.
Stebbins, R.C. 2003. Western Reptiles and Amphibians, 3rd Edition. Peterson Field Guides, Houghton Miffflin, Company, Boston, Massachusetts.
Stone, M.D. 1991. Wyoming toad recovery plan. Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6, Denver, Colorado. 28pp.
Taylor, S.K., E.S. Williams and K.W. Mills. 1999a. Experimental exposure of Canadian toads to Basidiobolus ranarum. Journal of Wildlife Diseases. 35 (1):5863.
Taylor, S.K., E.S. Williams and K.W. Mills. 1999b. Mortality of captive Canadian toads from Basidiobolus ranarum mycotic dermatitis. Journal of Wildlife
Diseases. 35 (1):64-69.
Taylor, S.K., E.S. Williams and K.W. Mills. 1999c. Effects of Malathion on disease susceptibility in Woodhouse's toads. Journal of Wildlife Diseases. 35
(3):536-541.
Taylor, S.K., E.S. Williams, E.T. Thorne, K.W. Mills, D.I. Withers, A.C. Pier. 1999d. Causes of mortality in the Wyoming Toad. Journal of Wildlife Diseases
35: 49-57.
Taylor, S.K., E.S. Williams, A.C. Pier, K.W. Mills, M.D. Bock. 1999e. Mucormycotic dermatitis in captive adult Wyoming toads. Journal of Wildlife Diseases
35: 49-57.
USDI National Park Service. 2001. Preliminary restoration of mountain yellow-legged frogs: Environmental assessment. Sequoia and Kings Canyon National
Parks, Three Rivers, California. 35pp.
Wendlandt, M., and Takats, L. 1999. Northern leopard frog reintroduction: Raven River – pilot year (1999). Alberta Environment, Fisheries and Wildlife
Management Division, Edmonton, AB. 22 pp.
Wind, E. (2002). Northern leopard Frog (Rana pipiens) husbandry manual. Nelson, BC, Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program.
Withers, D.I. 1992. The Wyoming toad (Bufo hemiophrys baxteri): an analysis of habitat use and life history. Master’s thesis. University of Wyoming,
Laramie.
13
Agencies
site ID
agency
contact info
Pre-Release, Release Site,
Post-Release
site ID
species ID
release site
state, country
etc…
Species Information
species ID
order
genus
species
etc…
Contacts
species ID
site ID
contact name
contact address
etc…
Release
Event Log
event ID
species ID
site ID
etc…
Sources
source ID
species ID
authors
year
etc…
Figure 1. Structure of the amphibian reintroduction database, based on Microsoft Access
“relationships” report. Boxes represent individual tables and lines represent linked data
fields among tables. Table titles are underlined within each box and example data fields
are listed below titles.
14